Ancestral Land Disputes: When Regular Courts, Not NCIP, Have Jurisdiction

The question of which tribunal hears a dispute over ancestral land can determine the entire course of a case. The Supreme Court, in Galang v. Wallis (G.R. No. 223434, July 3, 2019), settled a recurring point of confusion: the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) does not automatically have exclusive jurisdiction over every case involving ancestral land. The ruling clarifies that the regular courts, specifically the Regional Trial Court (RTC), retain jurisdiction when the parties do not belong to the same indigenous group.

The Dispute Over Land in Benguet

The petitioners filed a complaint for accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership) with the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. They claimed to be lawful owners of parcels of land in Ampucao, Itogon, tracing their title to a 1961 registration and a 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale. They sought to nullify a tax declaration and a survey plan (PSU No. 203172) used by the respondents, whom they accused of intruding on the property.

The respondents moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. They claimed the land was ancestral and that the dispute was among members of indigenous peoples' groups, placing it within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP's Hearing Officer. The RTC agreed, dismissing the complaint based on Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA, R.A. No. 8371) and the NCIP's rules. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: Who Hears the Case?

The sole question for the Court was whether the NCIP had exclusive jurisdiction over the complaint, thereby ousting the RTC of its authority.

The Ruling: NCIP Jurisdiction Is Limited

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the RTC's dismissal. It applied the doctrine established in Unduran v. Aberasturi (G.R. No. 181284), which interpreted Section 66 of the IPRA.

The Court ruled that under Section 66, the NCIP's jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving the rights of indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) and indigenous peoples (IPs) exists only when the parties belong to the same ICC/IP group. This is because the law requires the exhaustion of customary law remedies before a dispute can be brought to the NCIP, a process that only makes sense when both parties share the same customary laws and Council of Elders.

In Galang, the parties did not belong to the same ICC/IP group, and some were not even ICC/IP members at all. Therefore, the NCIP could not exercise jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the NCIP is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, and its authority cannot be presumed to be concurrent with that of the regular courts.

When the NCIP Has Primary Jurisdiction

The Court also clarified that the NCIP has primary jurisdiction over specific matters regardless of the parties' identities. These include: (1) adverse claims and border disputes arising from the delineation of ancestral domains and lands; (2) cancellation of fraudulently issued Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title; and (3) disputes involving violations of ICC/IP rights between members of the same group. Since the petitioners' complaint did not involve these matters, the RTC was the proper forum.

Practical Takeaways

• Check the parties' identities first. The NCIP's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 66 of the IPRA applies only when all parties belong to the same ICC/IP group. If even one party is from a different group or is not an indigenous person, the regular courts have jurisdiction.
• The nature of the claim matters. A case that is essentially a civil action for recovery of property (like accion reivindicatoria) falls under the RTC's jurisdiction, even if the land is located within an ancestral area.
• NCIP jurisdiction is not automatic. The NCIP's primary jurisdiction is limited to delineation disputes, fraudulent CADT claims, and intra-group disputes. Outside these, its authority should not be presumed.
• A prior ruling in City Government of Baguio v. Masweng was clarified. The Court noted that any statement in that case suggesting broader NCIP jurisdiction was obiter dictum (a mere opinion) and not binding precedent.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.